World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /  
 

UK

 
 
Page  Page 12 of 13:  « Previous  1  ...  10  11  12  13  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#166 | Posted: 7 May 2022 02:44 | Edited by: Solivagant 
This article from the Scotsman May 1 2022 suggests that the Flow Country is still "on track" for consideration at a 2024 WHC - which requires that the Nomination be handed over to the UK government at the end of this year.

The raison d'etre for the report was that "to support the bid, a team of independent scientific experts has just completed a series of assessments to determine how the habitat might respond to climate change impacts over the next three decades. Their findings are considered "hugely significant" in boosting the case to the United Nations, which if successful would see the Flow Country become the world's first peatland to be inscribed on the World Heritage list"

Note the comment that these "assessments" are "a method usually reserved for analysing sites which have already achieved World Heritage status."

I wonder if the "ante" is being upped for nominations (both Natural and Cultural?) and that a thorough assessment of potential impact of "Climate Change" and mitigation actions being taken will become a required aspect of ALL nominations? I have had a quick look at the AB evaluations for 5 of the 2021 successful nominations (Slate, Rosia Montana, Nice, SHUM and Ramappa) and only the Slate and SHUM evaluations contained a section on Climate change (and then. in the Slate case, only the ICOMOS evaluation - not that of IUCN).

It would seem a "no brainer" to do so. If it is important for existing WHS (and UNESCO is "big" on Climate change) then it must surely be so for upcoming ones and it is no use closing the stable door after inscription! Doing such studies and carrying out (or at least preparing to do so) identified actions requires extra effort, skill, cost (and bureaucracy?) and places yet another potential "barrier" in front of developing counties trying to produce successful nominations. It would seem better for everyone if a single, as simple as possible, approach could be adopted which provided a degree of objective "comparability"?

I note that the "technique" used on the Flow Country nomination - "Climate Vulnerability Index" or "CVI" was developed at the James Cook University in Australia and that ICOMOS (but not IUCN, despite the technique's use on both natural and cultural sites!) figures in the supporters of the technique as shown by its logo in the Web Site for the technique. Being "brought in" (or "bought in"!!!) to do the study for Scotland's "Flow Country" Nomination must have been a bit of a coup for this North Queensland institution?? It has already been used for existing WHS at Wadden Sea, Orkney and Shark Bay. Scotland must have quite liked what came out of the Orkney study to lead it to choose the same approach for the Flow Country.

Author Liam
Partaker
#167 | Posted: 10 May 2022 18:03 | Edited by: Liam 
Solivagant:
Climate Vulnerability Index" or "CVI" was developed at the James Cook University in Australia and that ICOMOS (but not IUCN, despite the technique's use on both natural and cultural sites!) figures in the supporters of the technique as shown by its logo in the Web Site for the technique. Being "brought in" (or "bought in"!!!) to do the study for Scotland's "Flow Country" Nomination must have been a bit of a coup for this North Queensland institution?? It has already been used for existing WHS at Wadden Sea, Orkney and Shark Bay.

I spotted in the ICOMOS 2021 Annual Report - https://issuu.com/icomos/docs/ra_icomos-2021_en_pao3-ter_hd_issuu t- that the UK is also supporting the CVI-Africa project which has also looked at the vulnerability of Sukur Cultural Landscape and Kilwa Kisiwani. Seems like very much the norm going forwards.

Author Liam
Partaker
#168 | Posted: 17 Jun 2022 02:01 | Edited by: Liam 
Port Sunlight / Birkenhead Park

Confirmation of a second (and, in passing, a third) application to join the UK's t-list in the current review. Both located in Wirral (the south bank of the Mersey across from recently-delisted Liverpool).

Port Sunlight https://www.portsunlightvillage.com/worldheritage/ is, yes you've guessed it, a planned urban environment designed to house workers of Lever Bros (now Unilever). It's a very pretty village, very stereotypical 'English pastoral' in an otherwise built up landscape.

The bid FAQs address the Liverpool issue: "However, Liverpool's World Heritage Site was very different to Port Sunlight. We're not dealing with the same development pressures so close to the village. Other World Heritage Sites in the UK that are more like Port Sunlight such as Saltaire and New Lanark have been successful in remaining active living places, with an appropriate level of development and change without loss of their World Heritage Site status." But that raises an issue about OUV: planned urban environments are well-represented on the List. I wouldn't personally compare Port Sunlight to New Lanark. Some similarities in purpose to Saltaire. But closest resemblance in my mind is to Crespi d'Adda in Italy and some components (e.g. the Cité Bruno in Dourges) of the Nord Pas-de-Calais Mining Basin.

The Port Sunlight FAQ also lets on that Wirral Council continues to support a bid from Birkenhead Park too: "Wirral  Council is committed to supporting both proposals and believes both are worthy of World Heritage Site status, reflecting the global influence that the Wirral has had on town planning."

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#169 | Posted: 17 Sep 2022 13:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
UK 1999 Tentative List
Yes I know it is a long time ago but today, purely accidentally, I came across this comprehensive document produced by the UK government describing all the sites on UK's Tentative List of 1999.
I do not believe we have referenced it before - I apologise if it is somewhere on the Forum already.

It seems a worthwhile "Historic resource". Many of the sites made it through to inscription, others (Jarrow and Downe House) failed, 1 (Liverpool) made it and was subsequently removed and another (Flow Country) is about to try. Some fell by the wayside when the 2012 T List was created....... others may survive the current T List development process and, I suppose it is possible, that some might even be resurrected!!!

What amazes me is the level of detail in which the T List items are described - even to the extent of detailed boundaries.
It is interesting to compare this detail with what eventually got nominated/Inscribed
a. Gibraltar was going to be a much larger area of the Peninsular and with a totally different justification - it was to be titled "The Fortress of Gibraltar" ... but got inscribed as "Gorham's Cave Complex"!.
b. The Forth Bridge was going to include areas of N and S Queensferry
c. Pont-cysyllte grew significantly
d. The Flow Country was going to be almost exactly the same as the recently published map .... after a gap of c23 years!!

The detailed descriptions of sites which have never been progressed contain some interest - Manchester/Salford, New Forest, The Wash ... even "Shakespeare's Stratford"!!!

I wonder if the 2022/3 T List will be published in such detail. I suspect not - I haven't been able to discover anything similar for the 2012 one.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#170 | Posted: 21 Sep 2022 09:34 
Solivagant:
UK 1999 Tentative List
Yes I know it is a long time ago but today, purely accidentally, I came across this comprehensive document produced by the UK government describing all the sites on UK's Tentative List of 1999.
I do not believe we have referenced it before - I apologise if it is somewhere on the Forum already.

Thanks for flagging this up, I have certainly seen it before (I recognise the Turner cover) but it has been a long time since I looked at it.

I will have a read through in more detail.

One thing that strikes me is how big the boundaries of the Down House propossal were. I assume it is ties in with local Green Belt protections, but it seems to be big enough to include several villages, three seperate golf courses and if I'm not mistaken, Biggin Hill airport including the headquarters of managment company for Formula One.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#171 | Posted: 21 Sep 2022 22:43 
Do we know any more about the process? Unless I am mistaken, we still don't actually know much about what might be selected or exactly when, no? Perhaps, some of us can do some sleuthing and find more information? Have any of the indicated meetings below taken place?

"The UK government will be convening a panel of experts to consider applications for inclusion on a new Tentative List of sites for potential nomination to UNESCO for World Heritage status and to make recommendations to ministers by the end of 2022. We expect the panel to meet three or four times, between summer and autumn."

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#172 | Posted: 21 Sep 2022 23:05 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Any indication which 2012 nominations might be dropped?

Chatham Dockyard and its Defences 2012
Creswell Crags 2012
Darwin's Landscape Laboratory 2012
Island of St Helena 2012
Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: the Zenith of Iron Age Shetland 2012
Flow Country 2012 *Nomination Pending, aiming for 2024
The Twin Monastery of Wearmouth Jarrow 2012
Turks and Caicos Islands 2012
Moravian Church Settlements 2022 *Nomination Pending, aiming for 2024-2025

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#173 | Posted: 22 Sep 2022 01:21 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
Do we know any more about the process? Unless I am mistaken, we still don't actually know much about what might be selected or exactly when, no? Perhaps, some of us can do some sleuthing and find more information?

Yes the Blogosphere has been remarkably quiet on the matter!

Re sites to be dropped from the 2012 list - I really can't see any appetite to continue with either Darwin's Laboratory or the Twin Monasteries. I would be surprised if Creswell Crags survives. This niche is getting rather crowded on the List and there are sites with greater (?) Worldwide significance yet to come forward whereas Creswell's USP is a bit limited ("Nothernmost Cave art in Europe")??. Which leaves, in UK proper, just Shetland (a "definite" in my view) and Chatham (Probably has enough merit and "push" to stay on?) to be carried forward. I presume that the overseas ones will survive -as will the recently added Moravian Church Settlements.

So what of other possible sites with recent "activity"?
Port Sunlight - we know it is very active and its dating of very late 19th/early 20th C with "Arts and Crafts" credentials seems to fill a gap between the earlier planned industrial towns of New Lanark and Saltaire and later examples on the European continent like Ivrea?
York - This detailed Report by the "York World Heritage Steering Group" was tabled in April 2022, showing the significant work which had been done to prepare a T List bid in advance of this year's process. This Twitter feed reports that a bid was forammly submitted on July 14 2022.
Birkenhead Park - Articles about Port Sunlight seem to assume that it is also putting itself forward but I can find no recent definite confirmation other than this from July 2022 which seems to suggest a real long term seriousness.
Navan Fort - will surely be added in line with Ireland's new T List entry. I hope so - I have a review of it tucked away waiting!! (Not that I am that enthusiastic about it)
Armagh Observatory - the only "new" (to me) proposal I discovered in this latest trawl. This article dates from July 2022 - it seems to be a "serious" proposal and they even have a video!!! Apparently it would be a transnational proposal - but the Republic of Ireland has just concluded its T List review process with no mention of their sites in Birr and Dunsink. We know that 6 sites reached the "final consideration stage" and that 3 got accepted but never discovered what the other 3 were - could the "Republic" elements of this have been one of them?? I would have thought that Ireland would have loved to have had a WHS which could be regarded as being in "Dublin" as Dunsink is. This report even indicates that the IUA (International Astronomy Union") paid a visit a formal visit to all 3 sites in April 2022 "to consider their potential for nomination for UNESCO World Heritage status." But then - nothing - very strange.
Redhills Durham ("Pitman's Parliament") - As per this article (Aug 2022) and earlier Forum discussions we can surely expect to see it being put forward to join the other "Workers Assembly halls" in the transnational nomination led by Denmark?

For quick reference these were the 38 sites which put themselves forward for consideration in 2011 - 11 got added (in italic, of which 5 "made it" - bold), 23 got a "No" (=N) and 4 got a "only if transnational" (= TN). Darwin and the Twin Monasteries got "left on" without further consideration at the time on the basis that their nominations were still "active" (Twin Monasteries was "Nominated" and Darwin was "Deferred")
1. Arbroath Abbey (N)
2. Blackpool (N)
3. Brontë Landscape and Haworth Village (N)
4. Chatham Dockyard and its Defences
5. Chester Rows (N)
6. City of York: subsurface archaeological deposits (N)
7. Colchester – Camulodunum and Colonia Victricensis (N)
8. Creswell Crags
9. England's Lake District
10. Former RAF Upper Heyford (N)
11. Gorham's Cave Complex
12. Gracehill Conservation Area (TN)
13. Historic Lincoln (N)
14. Island of St Helena
15. Jodrell Bank Observatory
16. Malone and Stranmillis Historic Urban Landscape (N)
17. MerthyrTydfil (N)
18. Merton Priory (N)
19. Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: the Crucible of Iron Age Scotland
20. Offa's Dyke England/ Wales Border Earthwork (N)
21. St Andrews – Medieval Burgh and Links (Home of Golf) (N)
22. Slate Industry of North Wales
23. The Birmingham Jewellery Quarter (N)
24. The Birth of the Railway Age: genesis of modern transport (N)
25. The Buildings of Charles Rennie Mackintosh (N)
26. The Dover Strait (N)
27. The Flow Country
28. The Forth Bridge (Rail)
29. The Fountain Cavern – Anguilla, British West Indies (TN)
30. The Great Western World Heritage Site: the Genesis of Modern Transport (N)
31. The heroic period of civil and marine engineering in England 1822 – 1866: a serial nomination of 4 sites within Bristol (N)
32. The Hill of Derry – Londonderry (N)
33. The Laxey Valley (Isle of Man) (N)
34. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads (N)
35. The Royal Sites of Ireland – Navan Fort (TN)
36. Turks and Caicos Islands Cultural and Natural Heritage
37. Tynwald Hill and environs: Norse assembly sites of North West Europe (TN)
38. Wye Valley and Forest of Dean (N)

Some could come back in - the rejections were sometimes on the basis of "has potential" - but i can't find any evidence that any of them have been "working in the meantime" to improve the case!! Macintosh (the School of Art fires can't have helped its case!), Golf (Sport), Railways, Derry (to support peace process!), U Heyford (Cold War) all had a door left open.

Which leaves room for "something completely different"! But what? There are plenty of fine country houses, vernacular villages, modern buildings, Universities etc etc.... but they are all a bit "same old, same old" (There must surely be some worthwhile 20th C buildings though??). In the mean time I have found these sites from beyond the 2011 applicants which have indicated some interest or lack thereof -

Alexandra Palace TV Transmitter and Studios. I came across this out of left field from 2011 - it wasn't put forward - I wonder if it still exists!! in 2015 there was an impassioned plea to preserve it but I suspect it has been irretrievably altered and lost.
Manchester/Salford was on the 1999 T List - but, if this article from Oct 2021 is anything to go by has no interest in renewing a bid.
The Uffington White Horse and associated Iron age monuments indicated an interest back in 2014 of preparing for a 2022 bid - but I can find no evidence that it has done so

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#174 | Posted: 22 Sep 2022 09:49 
Solivagant:
Alexandra Palace TV Transmitter and Studios. I came across this out of left field from 2011 - it wasn't put forward - I wonder if it still exists!! in 2015 there was an impassioned plea to preserve it but I suspect it has been irretrievably altered and lost.

I used to live right next to it, but have lost track since I moved away but it was still ongoing in 2016, they used to even have a page on their website about it, but I can't seem to track it down now. WHich slightly suggests it has gone off the boil in terms of pursueing WHS status.

The restoration of the Victorian theatre is now complete (very beautiful too if you ask me, it is frozen in decay), I also visited the original BBC studios on a few occasions. The space was very interesting, but I doubt the existance of the original studio wall would be a determining factor in the OUV of the site.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#175 | Posted: 24 Sep 2022 05:04 | Edited by: Solivagant 
YORK
This Powerpoint presentation from May 2020 might be of interest.
a. It shows the extent to which York has been preparing for this year's UK review of its Tentative List - and as indicated above, its lodging of an application with UK government has now been confirmed
b. It indicates how York intends trying to present itself as adding something to a List which already includes many European Cathedrals and mediaeval/continuity cities. It appears to be majoring on its Mediaeval stained glass with the Cathedral's Great East Window as the jewel in the crown plus the usual stuff about exchange of cultures, many different periods (including its 19th C Railway station) ...and even a contribution to preservation methods in the 20th C. Criteria i, ii, iv and vi are suggested.
c. It mentions (unexplained) a "hope" that it might get nominated for the 2026 or 2028 WHC - but the T List review process is already a year behind the assumptions made in 2020

Author Euloroo
Partaker
#176 | Posted: 24 Sep 2022 06:44 
Chelsea Physic Garden perhaps as part of the Linnaeus transnational https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5491/

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#177 | Posted: 24 Sep 2022 09:15 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Euloroo:
Chelsea Physic Garden perhaps as part of the Linnaeus transnational https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5491/

Indeed - I did some searches whilst preparing the above list of potential UK 2022 T List sites but was unable to find ANY reference to activity on this T List site later than 2014. Based on recent experience of e.g the European Spas and the Moravian sites, UK is unlikely to add it to its own T LIst unless "something" is happening in the "leading" country!! (Same is likely to apply to Navan Fort and the Republic of Ireland)
I have just done further searches using a variety of search terms including the sites in other countries likely to be included if the nomination does prgoress. See this Meltwaterfalls post from June 2011 for the full list!!!!!! They are "implied" in the text of the Swedish UNESCO T List description but not listed.

Then BINGO - This from a Swedish blog .... "Cornelius Holtorf took part in a meeting with regional politicians, civil servants and experts in the Counties of Kronoberg and Uppsala concerning progress in the nomination process of a serial UNESCO World Heritage site on "The rise of systematic biology", currently the only site on the Swedish tentative list (22 October 2020)."...

So - it looks as if Sweden might be taking some action... or might have decided to quit....I can't as yet find any report of the meeting. Whether this might knock on to any action regarding the UK T List is another matter. Again, Bath and Gracehill were included during the life of the current T List when it became worthwhile to do so - showing that Transnational sites don't have to wait for another full review!!.

Author Sebasfhb
Partaker
#178 | Posted: 24 Sep 2022 19:25 
Solivagant:
So - it looks as if Sweden might be taking some action... or might have decided to quit

I have also found no information at all(!) about a possible inclusion of the Botanical Gardens in Leiden. None at all except for the information provided by the Swedish initiative itself. It seems as though they are not that excited in the Netherlands, but that's to be expected as there is little support for any new World Heritage initiatives in the Netherlands in general.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#179 | Posted: 25 Sep 2022 06:31 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Sebasfhb:
they are not that excited in the Netherlands, but that's to be expected as there is little support for any new World Heritage initiatives in the Netherlands in general.

Interesting - I wonder just how many/few applications there will be for the current UK T List update. A lot fewer than last time's 38, I suspect - and that explains why we have found so little chatter about the subject on the Web. Some might say that there just aren't that many "good potential sites".... partly true but I also I get the feeling that events over the years have reduced the UK appetite.... costly "failures" (Jarrow and Darwin).... and the "Liverpool effect". When asked "Should UK have more WHS?" people will say "yes" of course but when it comes to going through the bureaucracy it is another matter. I don't believe that getting WHS status in UK actually increases the protection and preservation of any site, only its tourism visibility and this is likely to be of greatest value to the less significant sites? The good people of Bath clearly believe otherwise and were wanting to "double" their "protection" via a second inscription (at very little effort/cost of course by piggy-backing on a wider nomination led elsewhere).... whilst some will point at Liverpool and will claim that it will have had a salutary "warning effect" on other existing sites thinking of sailing close to the wind on potential developments. Edinburgh may also be cited as having benefited from that extra protection to stop some possible developments. Oxford and Cambridge are of course the leading examples of places which don't want to get anywhere near the scheme!! York, on the other hand, seems, reasonably democratically across a period of some years, to have decided to enter the fray!!! I hope they don't regret it.

On an associated point which may not be appropriate for discussion under this Forum.... why is it do you think that NL should be at least somewhat agnostic towards further WHS whilst, just a few kms across the frontier, "similar in many respects", Belgium seems intent on inscribing anything and everything!!! Having worked in NL I am aware of the jokes etc about the differences between the 2 countries and their peoples but this seems significant. Any suggestions why?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#180 | Posted: 25 Sep 2022 12:32 | Edited by: Solivagant 
South Georgia??
Thinking about other sites which "might" be considered for the new UK T List, I did some searching on "South Georgia" and came across this report from Sept 2018 - "A review of terrestrial protected areas : South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" carried out by UNEP-WCMC "commissioned by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) with the aim of reviewing terrestrial protection and ensuring it met a series of defined conservation goals as defined by GSGSSI and stakeholders".

It considers whether to attempt nomination for WH status as part of a protection and conservation strategy for the islands. I quote - "World Heritage Sites are sites considered to have outstanding universal cultural and/or natural values. Both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have also been considered by others for proposal on several occasions, even ranking highly under some criteria (IUCN 1992, 1995). South Georgia would suit biodiversity criteria in particular, the same criteria used by other Sub-Antarctic world heritage sites, such as Macquarie and Gough and Inaccessible (Chown et al. 2001; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2018). The territory's iconic cultural history means that there is also scope for it to be a site with both natural and cultural values. The benefits of inscription as a World Heritage Site can be significant, including increasing funding, increased promotional advantage, increased tourism as well as enhanced collaborations (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2007). The associated costs of proposing a site for World Heritage status can be equally great, costing around £0.5 million on average in the UK to create the bid as well as an additional £200,000 to create the management plan (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2007). Furthermore, the time to create such as bid is significant, often over five years and does not always result in inscription (Stoltz 2015)".

and concludes
"The cost of proposing the territory for international designations needs to be considered against the opportunity to spend those funds on practical management such as biosecurity measures or investing in further research on the territory's natural heritage (Pienkowski 2005)."..... "A couple of stakeholders suggested that the entire terrestrial area be protected as a multi-use zone but no respondents suggested the territory should become a Ramsar or a World Heritage Site."

It looks as if we can assume that the GSGSSI (a.k.a "UK Government") has decided NOT to pursue any World Heritage Nomination for South Georgia. Interestingly, no mention was made of the fact that France was, at this time, progressing nomination for its Sub-Antarctic territories (inscribed 2019 on Natural criteria only)!

Page  Page 12 of 13:  « Previous  1  ...  10  11  12  13  Next » 
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /
 UK

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑